fickle and easily swayed populace of Paris and of France. A crumbling edifice undermined by false ways must be shored up by any and every prop, sound or rotten, that can be found, lest, being seen to totter, the French mob-that mob which delights in a crash -should rush to assister (as the French say) at the catastrophe, and yell in fiendish delight over the dead and the débris. It is a life-and-death matter to the principal builders of the edifice of anti-revision, built up of chicanery, suppression of truth, open fraud, and perjury, that it should be held up from behind, for those who defend it must perish with it when it falls. The acquittal of Monsieur Gohier, on his trial under Government orders for his exposure of the rotten condition of things in the French army, must make the desperate defenders of the exclusion of light still more desperate. If this were not a French crisis, prediction would be easy. But in the case of a country where Thersites would be a probable Minister of State, and Titus Oates accepted as a martyr to patriotism, the difficulties of the prophet are not small. These disclosures have added much to the sum of ascertained fact, and make it absolutely impossible, if there is any sense of justice still existing in France, that revision of the Dreyfus case shall not take place. Even if the court intrusted with the investigation were base enough to truckle to the General Staff, or weak enough to yield to the intimidation of vile threats of anonymous letter - writers and unscrupulous newspaper bullies, and were, being so base or so cowardly, to violate their oath of office to do even-handed justice between the citizen and the State, it is quite impossible that there should be an end. The case is too flagrant, and is too clearly seen to be so by honest men, both in France and throughout the world. What was done in the past will not stand. A plainly revealed mass of It "fraud and impudence and lies" cannot be suffered to pollute the world's atmosphere. will certainly sooner or later be swept out, if not by the hand of justice, then surely by the besom of destruction. A nation can no more than an individual outrage moral sense without having sooner or later to repent or to harden in wickedness, on which Nemesis will advance with certain tread. Which shall it be in the case of France, and those who have sullied her good name? Will she bravely purge out the old leaven and become a new lump? Her neighbours will anxiously look out to see, clinging to hope that ere it is too late she will take courage and do the right. The reader shall judge for himself whether these things which have been said are just. What is now to be stated may be taken as fact, no longer open to dispute, except in those instances where it is stated that any matter is alleged only on strong prima facie grounds, calling for inquiry. In 1894, and for some time before that, there was reason to believe that information on con fidential military matters in France was being conveyed to foreign Powers. A French spy brought to the War Office fragments of a document containing a list-technically called a bordereau of military papers, which the writer was supplying to the German military attaché. They were said to have been found in a waste-paper basket. As the paper referred to some technical artillery matters, it was supposed to have come from an artillery officer, and Alfred Dreyfus, who was in the War Office, was suspected. On being arrested, he was taken by the orders of General Mercier to a military prison, and detained there in solitary confinement for many days, and constantly examined by Colonel du Paty de Clam, and made to write in different positions-standing, sitting, lying down, with gloves and without gloves. It is noteworthy that, when brought to the prison, General Mercier gave orders that he was to be fed on the fare appointed for condemned prisoners, and that it was only on the prison governor pointing out that he would be responsible for the illegality of such an outrage upon justice that the order was not carried out. Some weeks before the trial General Mercier conveyed to a Paris newspaper, and that newspaper published, his assurance that the accused was undoubtedly guilty, thus publicly stamping him as a condemned man before his defence had been heard. The court-martial was conducted in secret, and the accused was convicted of being the writer of the bordereau, there being no evidence to support any other nor charge made against his character. It is alleged, and not denied, that before the decision a document or documents were either read or shown to the court - martial, which the accused and his counsel were not permitted to see, and therefore could neither speak to lead evidence upon. As this is a very crucial point in the question of revision or no revision, it may be proper here to state that M. Dupuy, who was at the time Prime Minister, has sworn that he had heard of a secret document being used at the court-martial; and that M. Cavaignac, ex-Minister of War, said in evidence that he did not think it would be possible to affirm that the bordereau could have been the sole element of the first trial. The document secretly used was a letter passing between two persons not examined at the trial, and therefore could not, according to any possible rules of evidence in a civilised country, be an admissible document at all. It could prove nothing, any more than it would be proof against an accused person that somebody said something about the prisoner to some one else upon the street. This alone would vitiate any trial in a country where there is regard paid to justice and the citizen. Further, if the document could have been competent evidence it would have been worthless. It did not bear on the face of it to refer to Dreyfus, the only important words in it being, "Ce canaille de D- devient trop exigeant." The grammar is bad, the meaning is obscure, and the person spoken of is not identified. The context of the letter further shows that the Dreferred to could not be Dreyfus. Thus, if disclosed in full to the court - martial, it could not be of any weight against the accused: on the other hand, if only part of it was disclosed, those who used it to influence the court were doubly corrupt. The letter, therefore, was not evidence, and its contents, if admissible, did not constitute evidence; and if they were looked at as evidence in their entirety, were not in any sense effective evidence against the accused. To defend the secret use of it, whether wholly or partially disclosed, its acceptance as competent, its contents as having any bearing on the case, are things all equally impossible upon any principle of legal rule or ordinary justice. On the other hand, to defend its being used behind the back of the accused and his advisers requires an official effrontery that cannot be described otherwise than as brazen. If such use of any document was made, the members of the court-martial acted corruptly, and are liable to criminal punishment. If they were called on to commit this criminal act by their military superiors, that may be some palliation of their offence, but any superior who so acted is a still worse criminal. This alone offers to the War Office of France a strong incentive to strain every nerve to prevent public revision. But if the facts be as stated, revision can only be refused by corruption spreading into the Supreme Court of the land. Degradation followed on the conviction, Dreyfus at the parade loudly maintaining his innocence, and carrying his head erect. On the same day he appealed in pathetic terms to his counsel and all dear to him to continue searching for the truth. Then, at the instance of the Government, the Legislature passed a law empowering the State to subject such prisoners to more terrible punishment than the existing law permitted, and by a clause making it retroactive included the unfortunate Dreyfus in its meshes. Thus laws were broken and laws were made with the one object of ensuring condemnation and aggravating its penalties. The Dreyfus family emulated the courage of their relative, and resolutely set themselves to search matters to the bottom. Their efforts roused the wrath of the Roman Catholic and Anti-Republican journalists, and Anti - Republican society, both Royalist and Bonapartist, the army being mainly officered from these factions. Dreyfus was a Jew, and his defence was an attack upon the General Staff, therefore a virulent press, clerical and political, entered upon a course of wild vituperation, false accusation, and incentive to violence, of which the watchwords were "A bas les Juifs!" and "Vive l'Armée!" Any one who, however calmly, asked that light should be thrown on an episode of doubtful legality and justice, was held up to public obloquy as a traitor forming one of a "Syndicate of Treason" in the pay of the foreigner, whether German or English, or bribed by Hebrew gold. A crusade was proclaimed against all Jews, and any one who suggested that an officer of the army other than Dreyfus required to have his conduct inquired into was at once stigmatised as disloyal to the army, and as undeserving of the rights of a citizen. The Rocheforts, the Drumonts, and the Judets conducted a campaign of literary scurrility and lying such as never before disgraced journalism, and it is painful to have to record that the reading public seemed to love to have it so, for these abominable productions circulated in their hundreds of thousands all over the land. In aristocratic salons the conversation was scarcely less violent and unreasoning than were the utterances of the press. Matters were in this condition when, a little more than two years after Dreyfus's condemnation, a spy brought to the War Office the pieces of a petit - bleu resembling one of our own letter-cards, which on being put together disclosed a letter of a suspicious character, addressed to M. le Commandant Esterhazy, 27 Rue de la Bienfaisance, Paris. Colonel Picquart, who was then the head of the department, instituted inquiries as to Esterhazy, and obtained some of his handwriting. He became suspicious from an observed resemblance to the writing of the bordereau, and with great astuteness proceeded to have some of Esterhazy's writing photographed, names and other parts which might give a clue to the writer being covered over. On showing the photographs to M. Bertillon, who had given evidence as an expert against Dreyfus at his trial, Bertillon at once said, "Why, it is the same writing as the bordereau," and added, "For a year past the Jews have been keeping some one hard at work to produce the writing of the bordereau, and they have perfectly succeeded." Thus letters undoubtedly of Esterhazy were pronounced by this expert to be a successful imitation of the writing of the bordereau. Colonel du Paty de Clam on being shown the photographs said they were in the writing of Matthieu Dreyfus, the brother of Alfred, he having a theory that Alfred in writing the bordereau had blended his brother's writing with his own to disguise it. Thus two of the strongest witnesses against Dreyfus unwittingly identified Esterhazy's writing as being that of the bordereau, and conclusively demonstrated that the true hand which wrote it was the hand of Esterhazy. or When it became known to Colonel du Paty de Clam that Picquart was on the track of Esterhazy, it appears to have occurred to some person persons who were interested not to have the Dreyfus affair reopened, that as it seemed likely that the bordereau was about to fail as a piece of evidence, something must be done to give weight to the decision of the court - martial, so as to maintain the chose jugée. Accordingly some one - necessarily in the secrets of the War Office-communicated the fact to the 'Éclair' that the document containing the words "Ce canaille de D" had been laid before the court-martial. That this communication was made to the 'Éclair' corruptly, and against true justice, is proved by the fact that the name was given not D but "Dreyfus" in full. Who the person was is not known; but it is known that two men were deeply interested in preventing any reopening of the case, and were utterly unscrupulous in their modes-viz., Henry and Du Paty de Clam. That it should have been possible for men of any ordinary shrewdness to believe, that by cynically announcing that the court had been made to receive secret evidence outwith the knowledge of the defence they were strengthening the case of the opponents of inquiry, is a striking indication of their estimate of French notions of justice and fair-play. Such an announcement in similar case in any other country would have caused the whole community and press to rise up in indignant protest, and to demand instant review of such a scandalous travesty of justice. Knowing as they must have done that Dreyfus's counsel would at once declare that no such document had been shown to him or his client, their conduct is inconceivable unless they believed that the great mass of their fellow - citizens were as corrupt - minded as themselves. But, characteristically enough, the only person not of those who were demanding inquiry for Dreyfus, who seems to have been put in fear a of revision by this disclosure in the 'Éclair,' was Esterhazy himself, for when an agent was sent to Esterhazy's rooms he found the place empty and a heap of burnt papers on the hearth, Esterhazy having carried off all his other belongings to Rouen. The matter became serious. When Picquart had made his discovery, he had urged upon his chiefs that they were upon the eve of "a great scandal," and that the army authorities should take the initiative in clearing it up, adding, "If we lose too much time, the initiative will be taken from us, and that, apart from loftier considerations, will put us in an odious light"-"it will be a troublesome crisis, and one which we can avoid by doing justice in time." These views, so manly and wise, he reiterated in vain when the disclosure was made in the 'Éclair.' He received from his chief halfhearted replies, and he declares that at last he told his superior that he could not carry this secret with him into his tomb." But he of course at the time bowed to the instructions of his chiefs. 66 Two months later the following audaciously false statement was made by General Billot, the Minister of War, in answer to an interpellation. It was an answer prepared in the office of the General Staff by those who knew the facts. Speaking of the court-martial, he said: "Justice was then done. The preliminary hearing, the arguments, the judgment, were all conducted conformably to the rules of military procedure." |